Eruvin

If, therefore, it is poured in one's house like water that house has attained to the state of1 blessedness, otherwise it has not.2 R. Ila'i3 said: By three things may a person's character be determined: By his cup,4 by his purse5 and by his anger; and some say: By his laughter also. Rab Judah stated in the name of Rab: An Israelite and a heathen once lived in the inner of two courtyards and one Israelite lived in the outer one,6 and when the case7 came up for discussion before Rabbi he forbade the use of the latter,8 and when it was submitted to R. Hiyya he also forbade its use.8 Rabbah and R. Joseph were once sitting at the end [of a discourse] of R. Shesheth's session9 when the latter on sitting down suggested that10 Rab explained his traditional ruling to be in agreement with the view of R. Meir;11 and Rabbah nodded his head.12 ‘That two great men’,13 exclaimed R. Joseph,14 ‘should make a mistake in such a simple thing! If the ruling is in agreement with R. Meir why was it required that all Israelite shall live in the outer courtyard?15 And should you reply that the case just happened to be of such a mature, was not Rab asked, [it could be pointed out,] whether the inner Israelite tenant could use his own place16 and he replied that he was permitted?’17 — In agreement with whose view then?18 Is it suggested to be in agreement with that of R. Eliezer b. Jacob?19 Did he not, [it may be retorted,] rule:20 UNLESS THERE ARE TWO ISRAELITES WHO IMPOSE RESTRICTIONS UPON EACH OTHER?21 — Is it22 then in agreement with R. Akiba who ruled: A man who is permitted freedom of movement in his own place23 causes the restriction of free movement on others in a place that is not his?24 What need was there,25 [it may be asked,] to have a heathen,26 seeing that even one Israelite alone would have imposed the restrictions? — R. Huna son of R. Joshua replied: The ruling22 in fact is in agreement with R. Eliezer b. Jacob27 and R. Akiba,28 but29 here we are dealing with a case where [the two Israelites] joined in an ‘erub. Hence the reason of the prohibition that there was a heathen30 who imposed the restrictions, but where there was no heathen there is none to impose restrictions upon them. R. Eleazar31 enquired of Rab: What is your ruling where all Israelite and a heathen lived in the outer courtyard and one Israelite lived in the inner one? [Is the enactment32 applicable only] there,33 for the reason that it is usual34 [for an Israelite] to live [with a heathen] since [the former knows] that the heathen would be afraid [to use violence against him] as he expects the other Israelite35 to come and demand,36 ‘Where is that Israelite that lived with you?’37 but [not] here where the heathen could well reply,38 ‘He went out and disappeared’;39 or is it likely [that the enactment extended also to such a case since] here also [the heathen would be] afraid [to, use violence against his neighbour] as he imagines that the Israelite40 might at any moment pass41 and detect him in the act?42 — The other replied: Give to a wise man, and he will be yet wiser.43 Resh Lakish and the students of R. Hanina once happened to be in a certain inn44 while its tenant was away but its landlord was present. ‘Is it proper’,45 they discussed, ‘to rent from him46 [the heathen's share in the courtyard]?47 Wherever the landlord is not entitled to terminate the lease48 there could be no question that we must not rent it; the question arises only where he is entitled to terminate it.48 May we rent it because he has the power to terminate the lease or is it possible that, since at present at any rate he did not yet terminate it, we may not rent it?’ — Resh Lakish said to them: ‘Let us49 rent it50 and when we arrive at our Masters in the South we might submit the question to them’. On submitting the question51 to R. Afes he replied: ‘You have acted well in renting it’. R. Hanina52 b. Joseph, R. Hiyya b. Abba and K. Assi once happened to come to a certain inn whither53 a heathen, the owner of the inn, had returned on the Sabbath.54 ‘Is it permissible’,55 they discoursed, ‘to rent from him his share? Is the law of renting like that of the preparation of an ‘erub,56 so that as an ‘erub must be prepared while it is yet day,57 must renting take place while it is yet day;57 or is the law of renting like that of the renunciation of one's domain, so that as the right to one's domain may be renounced even on the Sabbath58 so may renting also take place on the Sabbath?’59 R. Hanina b. Joseph said: ‘Let us rent it’, while R. Assi said: ‘Let us not rent it’. ‘Let us’, said R. Hiyya b. Abba to them, ‘rely on the words of the old man and rent it’. When they subsequently came to R. Johanan and submitted the question to him he told them: the heathen has also let his share in it to its tenant. lectures devoted to the reviewing of the conclusions reached during the course, v. Kaplan J., The Redaction of the Babylonian Talmud, p. 257.]. lived even if no more than one Israelite lived in it with him. imposed the restrictions even in there had been only the one Israelite in his courtyard. share. How then could it be suggested that the ruling was in agreement with R. Meir. the latter could impose no restrictions upon the former. Why then was the use of the outer courtyard forbidden? restrictions upon them. use of their courtyard. Hence it is well permitted to the only Israelite in the inner court freely to use that courtyard in which he lives. restrictions on the use of the outer courtyard. one. him. supra n. 3) was deemed necessary. the termination of the Sabbath. absence in the case of ‘erub. (Cf. R. Judah's ruling supra 86a). heathen's share and thus be entitled to the unrestricted use of the courtyard. [This is not treated as a commercial transaction but as the presentation of a mere gift, since its sole object is to permit the movement of objects; Tosaf. 66a, s.v. vph].